Skip to main content

Table 1 Studies not indicating adverse effects (‘negative’ studies)a versus studies indicating possible adverse effects (‘positive’ studies)a

From: Letter to the editor regarding the article ‘EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?’

  Number of studies identified Treated as reliable Treated as unreliable
Studies not indicating adverse effects (‘negative’ studies)a
 Millstone and Dawsonb 81 62 (77%) 19 (23%)
 EFSAc 78 51 (65%) 27 (35%)
Studies indicating possible adverse effects (‘positive’ studies)a
 Millstone and Dawsonb 73 0 (0%) 73 (100%)
 EFSAc 37 21 (57%) 16 (43%)
  1. a Only primary sources of information relevant to the risk assessment process were included by EFSA in the analysis
  2. b Interpretation by Millstone and Dawson of the way how the ANS Panel had judged studies as reliable or not reliable
  3. c Interpretation by EFSA of the way how the ANS Panel had judged studies as reliable or not reliable. The criteria are described in the text, and information on the individual studies is detailed in [6]